Religious References in Lindsay Clancy Trial Anger Judge and Defense
New York Times · LC · trust 61/100
The religious reference by a prosecution witness on Monday incensed the presiding judge, who sternly instructed jurors to disregard it. Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer asked for a mistrial.
Listen · 4:38 min Share full article Lindsay Clancy and her defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, listen to testimony by Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist, on Monday. Credit... Pool photo by Greg Derr By Maia Spoto and Jacey Fortin
Maia Spoto reported from Plymouth, Mass.
For the second time since the trial opened last month, a reference to “mortal sin,” a concept that is part of the Catholic faith, incensed the judge, who sternly instructed jurors to disregard any references to it.
Ms. Clancy, 36, who was raised Catholic, does not deny strangling her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at her home in Duxbury, Mass., an affluent suburb of Boston, in January 2023. But she has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder, citing postpartum psychosis. She faces life in prison without parole if convicted.
Her lawyer has argued that she killed her children because she had been suffering from severe postpartum mental illness and had auditory hallucinations of a voice ordering her to do so.
Prosecutors argued that Ms. Clancy had planned the killings rationally and plotted to get her then-husband, Patrick Clancy, out of the house before she choked their children with exercise bands.
Monday’s proceedings were devoted to rebuttals, which give prosecutors an opportunity to respond to claims made by the defense. Those will continue on Tuesday, and closing arguments will follow, possibly on Wednesday. After that, the jury will deliberate to reach a verdict.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Read the original at New York Times →
Open in TruthVane →